They are all ranked above Makarov and all but one ranked above Fetisov. Same with 1981: all Canadian players are above all Russian players that defeated them. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? (quoting another Canadian cultural icon).

1) There is specific evidence that the Soviet junior program was in decline in the late 80s, so it makes sense that the Soviet players who were young then have more trouble making the list. I would imagine the program's decline was partly because of the decline of the government of the USSR in general, and partly because Tikhonov focused exclusively on the Red Army and National teams to the detriment of the rest of the program. But that's speculation.

2) The superstars of the Soviet team were Makarov, Fetisov, and Krutov. Larionov and Kasatonov were more like elite support players. Makarov and Fetisov are on the list (Makarov too low I agree). Krutov would probably be on the list if he didn't go from peak to useless over the course of a few months for no go reason. The 1987 team performed based on how those players played then. On "all-time" lists, we judge them based on their full careers, which really (and rightfully) hurts Krutov.

I'd really like to see a CONVINCING rationale (other than, they didn't always win in blow-out fashion against USSR, or even against other countries for that matter) for ranking Fetisov ahead of Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque and even Messier (Fetisov ahead of Messier is probably debatable).

Soviet youth program was in decline in the late 80s? The one that produced Fedorov, Mogilny, Bure, Kovalev, Zhamnov, Zubov, and Khabibulin? You are joking, right?

I'm not saying Fetisov and Makarov should be above Gretzky, that's ridiculous. But they should be above the relics from the 20s and 30s. Oh, and career-wise Larionov is superior to Krutov. Heck, in 1988 he was the MVP of the Soviet league.

Soviet youth program was in decline in the late 80s? The one that produced Fedorov, Mogilny, Bure, Kovalev, Zhamnov, Zubov, and Khabibulin? You are joking, right?

I've posted this before

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

An "ancient" 31 year old Bilyaletdinov was added to a declining Soviet Club in 1987, out of desperation.

Quote:

There is a feeling among long-time international observers that the Soviet program is in a state of transition, both in style and personnel. Although the Soviets have been playing hockey for 40 years, their game may be experiencing its first growing pains.

In one move interpreted as desperation, 31-year-old Zinetula Bilyaletdinov was added to the touring squad shortly before the Soviets left for Quebec, although he hadn't qualfied for the national squad in years. (For the Soviets, 30 is nearly ancient in hockey terms. Once past that "golden" age, players are routinely farmed out or given coaching duties.)

The pool of young talent has evidently dried up. The Soviets went victoryless in the recent fight-filled junior championships. [Alan Eagleson] said he couldn't recall seeing a worse collection of Soviet
juniors.

-Providence Journal, Feb 14, 1987

Seems the Soviet Hockey system was in decline in the late 80s, even before the fall of the Berlin Wall. This after its "peak" in the early-mid 80s. Speculation: Did Tikhonov throw away too many players he didn't like?

Either way, it explains one of the great mysteries of the fall of the USSR related to hockey. I've seen it asked on the History of Hockey board - was Fetisov really that good or did he just look good compared to the other Soviet defensemen? It's an logical question - while many Russian forwards have been huge impact players in the NHL, their defensemen really haven't been, with the exceptions of single year blips from Konstantinov and Zubov.

This shows, however, that well before the fall of the Iron Curtain, the USSR hockey program was already in decline, especially when it comes to defensemen.alev, Zhamnov, Zubov, and Khabibulin? You are joking, right?

So no, I wasn't joking. Were you joking when you included Zhamnov as an all-time great?

Quote:

I'm not saying Fetisov and Makarov should be above Gretzky, that's ridiculous. But they should be above the relics from the 20s and 30s. Oh, and career-wise Larionov is superior to Krutov. Heck, in 1988 he was the MVP of the Soviet league.

The late 20s-early 30s was the most competitive era of hockey until the second half of the Original 6 period. Seems fair that on an "all-time" list, there would be players from this era.

They won more but they also lost a few. Certainly not by the 7 to 1 margin. And I don't care about who was born when. I already gave my reasoning and my suggested proportions. Again: tell Gretzky and his entire 1987 gang that they barely defeated a team, where only 2 people would make the Top 70 list, one in the 30s and one in the 60s. I imagine they would have an issue with that, considering that much of their lineup is on that list.

The Soviets practiced and played together year round. Ignoring this historical fact won't make it go away.

If you don't believe me look at the NHL stats from the early 90's when just about every Soviet trained player who could get a job in the NHL came over. Were there some Soviet trained players who were exceptional NHLers? Yes, absolutely there were some. Did they produce anywhere close to the same number of elite NHLers as Canada did? No, it was not even close.

Far and away the main reason for this was because Canada has always had more people playing the game and thus a deeper pool to develop players from.

I'd really like to see a CONVINCING rationale (other than, they didn't always win in blow-out fashion against USSR, or even against other countries for that matter) for ranking Fetisov ahead of Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque and even Messier (Fetisov ahead of Messier is probably debatable).

What are you talking about? Fetisov over Gretzky or Lemieux? Where do you find that claim?

EDIT: Now I see the post you are referring to (post #750). Seems it has misleading wording and therefore your post was justified.

BTW Fetisov vs Bourque is debatable if you go by peak and not longevity. Both were considered to be pretty much on par in the 1980s.

So, just curious.. who are some of the players on the Top 70 list (you've seen enough to make a judgment) who don't belong, and why?

Like I said before: I'd keep about 20 Canadian relics (pre 1970). Pick any 20 you want. I don't know them well enough and I'm not interested in them. They were not as good as post 1970, that's not even debatable. Keep 20 for their historic importance. Then pick 20 or so Canadians from the modern era. Then about 10-15 Russians, then the rest. I believe this would be an accurate representation of hockey's talent distribution and development.

The Soviets practiced and played together year round. Ignoring this historical fact won't make it go away.

I have already disputed that claim. Look at the lines from all their major events. Kharlamov did not even make the 1976 and 1981 Canada Cups, and in 1972 he played with new partners practically every game. In 1987 there were two CSKA lines, one Dynamo, and one KS, with rotating defensive pairs

Quote:

you don't believe me look at the NHL stats from the early 90's when just about every Soviet trained player who could get a job in the NHL came over. Were there some Soviet trained players who were exceptional NHLers? Yes, absolutely there were some. Did they produce anywhere close to the same number of elite NHLers as Canada did? No, it was not even close.

That's just silly. Do you know what's it like to transplant yourself from one social, cultural, and athletic paradigm into another? Some players adjusted quickly (Makarov, Kamensky), some slowly (Mogilny), some didn't adjust at all (Krutov). Doesn't make them any more interior to the NHL stars.

Like I said before: I'd keep about 20 Canadian relics (pre 1970). Pick any 20 you want. I don't know them well enough and I'm not interested in them. They were not as good as post 1970, that's not even debatable. Keep 20 for their historic importance. Then pick 20 or so Canadians from the modern era. Then about 10-15 Russians, then the rest. I believe this would be an accurate representation of hockey's talent distribution and development.

Name names. Be specific. Quit beating around the bush and answer the question, please.

Like I said before: I'd keep about 20 Canadian relics (pre 1970). Pick any 20 you want. I don't know them well enough and I'm not interested in them. They were not as good as post 1970, that's not even debatable. Keep 20 for their historic importance. Then pick 20 or so Canadians from the modern era. Then about 10-15 Russians, then the rest. I believe this would be an accurate representation of hockey's talent distribution and development.

No, this summarizes my point much more accurately.

Feel free to prove that Canadians in the 30s were better than Russians in the 80s. Speed, puck-handling, shot, conditioning, passing, positioning...

Feel free to prove that Canadians in the 30s were better than Russians in the 80s. Speed, puck-handling, shot, conditioning, passing, positioning...

If players from the 1920s skated faster and shot harder than 80s Russians while using 20s era equipment, then there don't deserve to be any 80s Russians in the top 70s. I don't know what sort of proof you're asking for, but the basic assumptions that frame judging players by their talent-pool dominance are far saner than the assumption that there was some sudden uptick in overall human athletic ability that happened once the Russians decided to play hockey.

What are you talking about? Fetisov over Gretzky or Lemieux? Where do you find that claim?

EDIT: Now I see the post you are referring to (post #750). Seems it has misleading wording and therefore your post was justified.

BTW Fetisov vs Bourque is debatable if you go by peak and not longevity. Both were considered to be pretty much on par in the 1980s.

I loled at your post

I don't think Fetisov vs. Bourque is debatable. I do think both elements (Peak, Longevity) have to be considered. While their peaks are certainly close to each other, one has legendary longevity (and not only longevity, but also longevity of peak) and the other doesn't.

Like I said before: I'd keep about 20 Canadian relics (pre 1970). Pick any 20 you want. I don't know them well enough and I'm not interested in them. They were not as good as post 1970, that's not even debatable. Keep 20 for their historic importance. Then pick 20 or so Canadians from the modern era. Then about 10-15 Russians, then the rest. I believe this would be an accurate representation of hockey's talent distribution and development.

This post could be titled : " How to discredit itself 101 ".
That's HISTORY OF HOCKEY BOARD. Not all eras are judged equally (basically, WWII era is weaker than middle/late 0-6; Pre-Merger is weaker than late 80ies, and so on), but all eras are CONSIDERED equally and judged on its merits, and the emergence of USSR on the hockey scene is only a fact amongst a series of others facts that have to be considered. History doesn't start with USSR. Besides, tossing a guy like Frank Mahovlich (good example of a guy that would be kicked out by your suggestion) out of the Top-70, to make room for... Krutov!?!?!? would basically mean that we value russian players achievements more than canadian players achievements. And THAT, would be... well, racist, xenophobic, whatever...

On the other hand, would you keep Frank Brimsek in such a list? 'Cause you basically suggested kicking Frank Mahovlich out, and keeping Frank Brimsek in.

This post could be titled : " How to discredit itself 101 ".
That's HISTORY OF HOCKEY BOARD. Not all eras are judged equally (basically, WWII era is weaker than middle/late 0-6; Pre-Merger is weaker than late 80ies, and so on), but all eras are CONSIDERED equally and judged on its merits, and the emergence of USSR on the hockey scene is only a fact amongst a series of others facts that have to be considered. History doesn't start with USSR. Besides, tossing a guy like Frank Mahovlich (good example of a guy that would be kicked out by your suggestion) out of the Top-70, to make room for... Krutov!?!?!? would basically mean that we value russian players achievements more than canadian players achievements. And THAT, would be... well, racist, xenophobic, whatever...

On the other hand, would you keep Frank Brimsek in such a list? 'Cause you basically suggested kicking Frank Mahovlich out, and keeping Frank Brimsek in.

I'm getting higher on Brimsek by the day in the top-60 goalies projects, by the way. Haven't thought about where he'd stand in a consolidated list, but he stands a chance of being the 8th or 9th best goalie.

But yeah, choosing the proportion of players from Russia, from a certain era, with a certain hair colour, is barely even putting the cart before the horse. It's like putting the cart before the road.

I have already disputed that claim. Look at the lines from all their major events. Kharlamov did not even make the 1976 and 1981 Canada Cups, and in 1972 he played with new partners practically every game. In 1987 there were two CSKA lines, one Dynamo, and one KS, with rotating defensive pairs

That's just silly. Do you know what's it like to transplant yourself from one social, cultural, and athletic paradigm into another? Some players adjusted quickly (Makarov, Kamensky), some slowly (Mogilny), some didn't adjust at all (Krutov). Doesn't make them any more interior to the NHL stars.

When you say a player that was dead didn't make the team...

No, the entire Soviet NT didn't play together for 12 months of the year, but name one Team Canada with a forward lineup made up of players from 3 teams.

I have already disputed that claim. Look at the lines from all their major events. Kharlamov did not even make the 1976 and 1981 Canada Cups, and in 1972 he played with new partners practically every game. In 1987 there were two CSKA lines, one Dynamo, and one KS, with rotating defensive pairs

but this proves my point. The Soviet national team spread its lines over 2 or 3 Moscow based club teams so they could compete against each other in between international tournaments. I'm not sure what Kharlamov proves? Every team shuffles their lines from time to time and besides just because a Soviet player hadn't played in a tournament with his line mates before doesn't mean he hadn't practiced with them lots. After all that was the point of having all the top players play for clubs based in Moscow, thus allowing lots of time for national team practices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sentinel

That's just silly. Do you know what's it like to transplant yourself from one social, cultural, and athletic paradigm into another? Some players adjusted quickly (Makarov, Kamensky), some slowly (Mogilny), some didn't adjust at all (Krutov). Doesn't make them any more interior to the NHL stars.

I'm talking about them adjusting on the ice, not socially, these are grown men after all. Those who were good enough adjusted to the NHL.